From Beyond The Rainbow Somewhere

Day: 05/12/2015

Post navigation

A new study has demonstrated that menthol acts in combination with nicotine to desensitize can be harmful for lungs.

Senior author Gerard Ahern, PhD, an associate professor of pharmacology at Georgetown University Medical Center (GUMC), said that in addition to desensitizing the receptors in the lung and airways, menthol appears to slow or prevent the recovery of sensitivity after the first insult, likely placing the receptors in a desensitized state.

Study co-author, Kenneth Kellar, PhD, a professor of pharmacology at GUMC, said that these receptors were also found in the brain, but they did not know yet what effect menthol had on those receptors, or whether they contribute, in any way, to nicotine addiction.

Ahern and his colleague say their study provides a better understanding of how menthol affects the function of the a34 receptor, one of the most prevalent nicotinic acetylcholine receptors expressed in the peripheral nervous system. These receptors are expressed in airway sensory nerves as well as other neurons.

Ahern added that the issue may be that menthol in the presence of nicotine may reduce the irritation enough that a smoker can inhale more deeply, bringing not just nicotine but toxic smoke products farther into the lungs.

Thanks to improved relations with Cuba, U.S. researchers will soon have access to a lung cancer vaccine. The Roswell Park Cancer Institute (RCPI) in New York has finalized an agreement with Cuba’s Center for Molecular Immunology to bring the vaccine, Cimavax, to the United States.

Cimavax has now embarked on the first leg of its long journey to FDA approval. Although the drug has been available free of charge to Cubans since 2011, it will likely be some time before Americans can expect the treatment to be available stateside. Roswell Park CEO Dr. Candace Johnson told Wired that she hopes to get approval for testing Cimavax within six to eight months and to start clinical trials in a year.

Once trials begin, the vaccine will need to be tested for its safety and effectiveness before its release for public use can even be discussed. The process will likely take years, but still, Roswell has already submitted a 1,000-page investigational new drug (IND) application for FDA review, Johnson previously told Medical Daily.

Although many may confuse vaccines as a drug which prevents an illness, the word actually describes anything which facilitates an immune response from the body. Cimavax works by spurring a patient’s body to release antibodies against epidermal growth factor, which signals tumor growth. In lung cancer patients, this prevents lung tumors from growing and spreading and can turn a late-stage lung cancer into something slightly more manageable.

According to Cancer Research UK, the vaccine helps lung cancer patients live an average of four to six months longer than those without the medication. It also improved the people’s quality of life by reducing symptoms such as coughing and breathlessness.

The drug is by far not a miracle solution to lung cancer. It does not save the lives of terminal lung cancer patients. It can only extend and slightly improve them. Also, there are already treatments available in the U.S., such as the widely used Tarceva, which works similar to Cimavax by extending patient lifespan by controlling tumor growth hormones. However, Cimavax is particularly intriguing because of its low toxicity level and extreme affordability (Wired reported that each shot of the drug costs the Cuban government around one U.S. dollar).

Roswell doesn’t plan on limiting its Cimavax research to lung cancer treatment, however. The institute is hoping to take the vaccine to the next level and explore its potential as a way to completely prevent the recurrence and even initial onset of lung cancer. Currently, the drug is given to help extend the lives of lung cancer patients in Cuba. Roswell plans on testing the limits of the drug’s capacity and what would happen if the drug was given to individuals who do not yet have lung cancer tumors. For example, in a talk radio show with WBFO, Johnson explained her interest in seeing if the drug could prevent the recurrence of lung cancer in patients that were diagnosed early on, had surgery to remove the cancer, but still remain at high risk.

“You have surgery. You treat the lung cancer. You’re free of disease, but you’re at high risk for recurrence. The cancer is going to grow back. Let’s give the vaccine there,” Johnson said.

She even wants to push the vaccine’s potential even further and explore whether actually preventing cancer from ever occurring is a real possibility.

“And let’s just say that works and we prevent recurrence and we show an efficacy in that setting,” she said. “We could move back even further, and perhaps this vaccine may have value in treating heavy smokers or people with already chronic lung diseases that are at high risk for lung cancer.”

Like this:

First, let’s set the record straight by saying that sugar in and of itself isn’t evil, per se. It occurs naturally in plenty of foods, including fruits and milk. With that being said, adding excess sugar to your dietary intake simply isn’t necessary. In fact, you’ll notice numerous positive things happen when you decide to quit sugar for life.

Although people living in the Western world have been trained to desire sugary treats, as well as foods that include copious amounts of sugar for flavoring, we certainly don’t need it. If you stop eating anything but naturally occurring sugars, you’ll notice that 5 very distinctive things will happen.

1. Your Energy Will Improve

Ironically, many of us have a tendency to reach for sugar-filled items, including so-called energy drinks and caffeinated beverages, when we’re tired. Yet without all the sugar, we’re guaranteed to have a higher energy level naturally. In other words, all that sugar is blocking our body’s ability to keep our energy stores at maximal levels. Plus, there will be no up-and-down with your blood sugar, so afternoon crashes will become an experience of the past.

2. Your Weight Will Stabilize

Sugar makes you crave more sugar, and we’re not just talking about sugar in its raw form. Let’s face it: most sugar comes in high-fat and/or high-carb foods that have been processed or at least contain tons of unwanted ingredients. There is, of course, the exception of fruit, which are nearly all sugar.

By going on a sugar detox, your body will not be subjected to the need to deal with all those additional calories. You won’t feel hungry, and you’ll end up losing weight – or at least not seeing the scale fluctuate as dramatically.

3. Your Intestines and Colon Will Perform More Efficiently

If your insides could tell you what they wanted on a daily basis, they would say lots of fiber and a minimum amount of tough-to-digest, impure foods. When you remove sugar, you’re enabling your tummy and bowels to reset their abilities to process what you’ve eaten. You may even find that you go to the bathroom more often … this is a good thing. It means everything is getting back to a normal routine.

4. You’ll Stop Wanting Sugar

It’s a fact: sugar begets sugar. After you rid it from your food regimen, you’ll slowly begin to lose the desire to eat anything with sugar in it. Fruits will taste plenty sweet, and if you do take a bite of a cake or pie, you’ll be shocked at how overpowering and overly sweet it seems.

5. Your Skin Will Look Healthier

Have you noticed that you can’t seem to crack the case on why your acne appears and disappears despite all the creams, potions, and ointments you’re using? It may be that sugar is hurting your skin from the inside out. Many people report that their skin feels and looks healthier after they stop giving in to sugar’s pull.

Ready to Start Your Sugar Detox and Quit Sugar for Life?

While a cold turkey approach to your sugar detox isn’t always recommended, especially if you’ve been a sugar-holic for most of your lifetime, it’s definitely a good idea to start cutting back now. The faster you begin, the faster you’ll start to reap the advantages of going sugar-free.

Start small by evaluating everything you’re eating and drinking. If you are addicted to sugar-laced coffee drinks sold at popular coffeehouses, scale back on how many times you drink them. Then, scale back some more. Soon, omit certain sugar-laden products. Over time, you will physiologically adjust to your new habits.

Remember that it takes about three weeks before a new way of doing something becomes a comfortable routine. If you have slight missteps, such as eating a candy bar after a stressful workday, just keep forging ahead.

Like this:

Last week, Oklahoma State Senator Ralph Shortey introduced a bill that would ban “the manufacture or sale of food or products which use aborted human fetuses.” But which foods or products use aborted human fetuses? Let’s investigate.

NPR speculates that Shortey’s bill has to do with a recent boycott aimed at PepsiCo for working with a company called Senomyx that “has been accused of using proteins derived from human embryonic kidney cells in its research.” Quoth Shortey:

The senator says that his research shows there are companies in the food industry that have used human stem cells to help them research and develop products, including artificial flavorings.

“I don’t know if it is happening in Oklahoma, it may be, it may not be. What I am saying is that if it does happen then we are not going to allow it to manufacture here,” Shortey tells KRMG’s Nicole Burgin.

As an impartial journalistic outlet, we’re not here to tell you that Ralph Shortey is an utter moron whose incompetent attempts to ban stem cell-derived medicine reveal his all-encompassing idiocy, nor to tell you that the use of aborted human fetuses in food would already be in clear violation of a variety of different federal and state laws. Nor, for that matter, are we here to tell you that you should or should not be eating aborted human fetuses. What we are here to do is find out what foods are made using aborted human fetuses. We’ve contacted a number of the country’s largest food companies and asked: do you use aborted human fetuses in your food products?

Companies That Do Not Use Aborted Human Fetuses in Their Food Products

PepsiCo

Products include:Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, Tropicana Orange Juice, Doritos, Quaker Oatmeal, Mountain Dew, Fritos, GatoradeContains aborted human fetuses? In a letter to “Children of God for Life,” PepsiCo consumer relations representative Margaret Corsi writes: “These claims are meant to suggest that human fetal tissue is somehow used in our research. That is both inaccurate and something we would never do or even consider. It also is inaccurate to suggest that tissue or cells somehow are being used as product ingredients. That’s dangerous, unethical and against the law.”

Like this:

By combining 3D holographic lithography and 2D photolithography, researchers from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have demonstrated a high-performance 3D microbattery suitable for large-scale on-chip integration with microelectronic devices.

“This 3D microbattery has exceptional performance and scalability, and we think it will be of importance for many applications,” explained Paul Braun, a professor of materials science and engineering at Illinois. “Micro-scale devices typically utilize power supplied off-chip because of difficulties in miniaturizing energy storage technologies. A miniaturized high-energy and high-power on-chip battery would be highly desirable for applications including autonomous microscale actuators, distributed wireless sensors and transmitters, monitors, and portable and implantable medical devices.”

“Due to the complexity of 3D electrodes, it is generally difficult to realize such batteries, let alone the possibility of on-chip integration and scaling. In this project, we developed an effective method to make high-performance 3D lithium-ion microbatteries using processes that are highly compatible with the fabrication of microelectronics,” stated Hailong Ning, a graduate student in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering and first author of the article, “Holographic Patterning of High Performance on-chip 3D Lithium-ion Microbatteries,” appearing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“We utilized 3D holographic lithography to define the interior structure of electrodes and 2D photolithography to create the desired electrode shape.” Ning added. “This work merges important concepts in fabrication, characterization, and modeling, showing that the energy and power of the microbattery are strongly related to the structural parameters of the electrodes such as size, shape, surface area, porosity, and tortuosity. A significant strength of this new method is that these parameters can be easily controlled during lithography steps, which offers unique flexibility for designing next-generation on-chip energy storage devices.”

Microbattery, illustrating it lighting an LED with a 0.5 mA current which corresponds to a 600 C discharge.

“Although accurate control on the interfering optical beams is required to construct 3D holographic lithography, recent advances have significantly simplified the required optics, enabling creation of structures via a single incident beam and standard photoresist processing. This makes it highly scalable and compatible with microfabrication,” stated John Rogers, a professor of materials science and engineering, who has worked with Braun and his team to develop the technology.

“Micro-engineered battery architectures, combined with high energy material such as tin, offer exciting new battery features including high energy capacity and good cycle lives, which provide the ability to power practical devices,” stated William King, a professor of mechanical science and engineering, who is a co-author of this work.

Like this:

This Viewpoint discusses amyotrophic lateral sclerosis as a syndrome rather than a single disease that requires varied diagnostic and therapeutic approaches.

The French neurologist Jean-Marie Charcot (1825-1893) is acclaimed for his studies on the motor system and unifying previously disparate entities into 1 disorder, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). His careful work correlating neurological signs with anatomy led to the concept that a spectrum of neurological disorders, including progressive muscular atrophy, progressive bulbar palsy, and primary lateral sclerosis, represented a single entity, ALS. Charcot summarized his ideas in a frequently cited review in 1874 that has dominated medical nosology for 140 years.1.

Like this:

A new type of blood test is starting to transform cancer treatment, sparing some patients the surgical and needle biopsies long needed to guide their care.

The tests, called liquid biopsies, capture cancer cells or DNA that tumors shed into the blood, instead of taking tissue from the tumor itself. A lot is still unknown about the value of these tests, but many doctors think they are a big advance that could make personalized medicine possible for far more people.

They give the first noninvasive way to repeatedly sample a cancer so doctors can profile its genes, target drugs to mutations, tell quickly whether treatment is working, and adjust it as the cancer evolves.

Two years ago, these tests were rarely used except in research. Now, several are sold, more than a dozen are in development, and some doctors are using them in routine care.

Gurpaul Bedi had one for colon cancer that spread to his lungs. About 10 percent of patients with metastatic colon cancer at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center now get liquid biopsies.

“I think it’s wonderful,” said Bedi, who lives in Atlanta and goes to Houston for his care. “A lung biopsy, many doctors told me, is not easy.”

In Philadelphia, a liquid biopsy detected Carole Linderman’s breast cancer recurrence months before it normally would have been found.

“Had this test not been available, we may not have known I had cancer on my spine until symptoms showed up,” which may have been too late for good treatment, she said.

The huge potential for these tests is clear. The problem: There are no big, definitive studies to show they help patients, how accurate they are, which type is best or who should get them and when.

Still, patients do better when drugs are matched to their tumors, and liquid biopsies may give a practical way to do that more often.

“I’m really excited about all of this,” said Dr. Razelle Kurzrock, a University of California, San Diego cancer specialist. “I spent most of my life giving drugs that were useless to people” because there was no good way to tell who would benefit or quickly tell when one wasn’t working, she said. “This is so much better.”

WHO GETS TESTED NOW

The tests are mostly used when a tissue biopsy can’t easily be done, when the cancer’s original site isn’t known, or when drugs have stopped working and doctors are unsure what to try next, said Dr. Scott Kopetz, a colon cancer specialist at MD Anderson. The tests are catching on “faster than I anticipated,” he said.

At Philadelphia’s Thomas Jefferson University, Dr. Massimo Cristofanilli has used them on about 120 breast cancer patients, including two dozen like Linderman with a high risk of recurrence.

A tissue biopsy typically samples one section of a tumor, and tumors can vary widely, with different genes and hormones active in different parts, he said. Also, cancer that has spread often differs from the original site, and tumors change rapidly in response to treatment.

With a tissue biopsy, “our treatments lag behind and they’re still based on limited information,” Cristofanilli said. With a liquid biopsy, “the power of this test has been to really find out how the disease changes, even in a short period of time.”

HOW THEY WORK

Early versions looked for whole tumor cells in blood. Newer ones look for free-floating cancer DNA, enabling gene profiling to see what mutations drive the cancer. Kopetz and Cristofanilli use one from Guardant Health Inc. of Redwood City, California, that has been sold in the U.S. since June 2014 and in parts of Europe and Asia.

Many companies are working on similar tests including Sequenom, a San Diego biotech that already sells one for prenatal screening, using fetal DNA in maternal blood. Many companies tried prenatal screening with fetal cells but it didn’t work, said chief science officer Dirk van den Boom. “Cell-free DNA really was the breakthrough” that enabled wide use, and the same could happen with these cancer tests, he said.

THE COST

Whether liquid biopsies will be cost-effective is unknown. Guardant’s test costs $5,400; some insurers cover it for certain types of patients. Gene profiling from a tissue biopsy costs about the same. The promise of liquid biopsies is that they can be done periodically to monitor care, but more tests means more cost.

They may save other costs, though. A traditional lung biopsy is thousands of dollars. Money could be saved by skipping cancer drugs that ultimately don’t work; many cost $10,000 to $15,000 a month.

With cell-free DNA tests, even doctors in rural areas can offer precision medicine because they can ship a blood sample to a lab. “We think that’s the future,” said Dr. Charles Baum, a former Pfizer cancer drug chief who now heads Mirati Therapeutics, a San Diego biotech company developing gene-targeting drugs

DO THEY WORK?

Many studies suggest that liquid biopsy results largely mirror those from tissue ones, and sometimes find more mutations. A study Kopetz presented in April at an American Association for Cancer Research meeting found the blood tests detected cancer mutations in the vast majority of 105 colorectal cancer patients. For 37 percent of them, doctors thought a drug could target a mutation that was found.

Still, no big studies show that liquid biopsies give better care or extend lives. Without that proof, how much they will be used by doctors and covered by insurers remains to be seen.

THE FUTURE

A San Diego company, Trovagene, is working on an even faster, easier liquid biopsy — a test to detect tumor DNA in urine. One scenario: a patient collects a urine sample every day for a week after starting a new drug and ships them to a lab.

“In as little as three to five days, you can observe dramatic changes” that suggest a response to treatment, said Trovagene’s chief executive, Antonius Schuh.

Work on this test is still very early.

Ultimately, liquid biopsies might offer a way to screen for cancer besides the mammograms, colonoscopies and other methods used now. That raises even more questions, including when to call something “cancer” and whether it needs treatment if there are only abnormal cells in the blood.

“Why does there have to be a tumor? The tumor is the symptom. The disease is the DNA,” Schuh said.

Like this:

Want to avoid the risk of cognitive decline with ageing? Eat healthy. A new research says, people having healthier diets with higher quantities of vegetables, fruits, fish, nuts, soy products and moderate alcohol intake, are likely to have a super brain even as they age.

A team from Ontario-based McMaster University tracked the health and habits of 28,000 people who were taking part in two international studies across 40 countries.

Researchers found that of the 5,700 people with the healthiest diets, 14% had not developed cognitive decline.

On the other hand, in the 5,460 people with the least healthy diets, about 18% of them experienced cognitive decline. The unhealthy foods were red meat, deep-fried items and sweets. It may not sound like a big difference but there is about a 24% reduction in risk for the people on healthy diets.

“Consumption of ‘healthy’ choices may be beneficial but the effect may be reduced with the consumption of ‘unhealthy’ choices,” Forbes reported, quoting the researchers.

For example, the beneficial effect of fruit may be lost if prepared with high amounts of fats or sugars.

“Our data suggest an overall healthy diet is more important than the consumption of any one particular food,” study author Andrew Smyth emphasised.

Healthy diets are rich in antioxidants and are excellent for the brain health.

Like this:

A person’s gut bacteria and the colony of microbes that live in the body and on the skin may serve as a unique identifier, much like a fingerprint, researchers said.

The study led by Harvard University is the first to investigate just how identifiable people are based on their bacteria, which can vary substantially based on a person’s age, diet, geographic location and overall health.

What kinds of bacteria live in and on us? And how much bacteria do we share with the people and pets we live with? A San Francisco-based company called uBiome is trying to find the answers.

“Linking a human DNA sample to a database of human DNA ‘fingerprints’ is the basis for forensic genetics, which is now a decades-old field,” said lead author Eric Franzosa, research fellow in the Department of Biostatistics at Harvard.

“We’ve shown that the same sort of linking is possible using DNA sequences from microbes inhabiting the human body — no human DNA required.”

Scientists found that stool samples were particularly reliable. Up to 86 percent of people could be identified by their gut bacteria after one year.

Skin samples were less reliable. About one third of those could be matched to a person after one year, said the study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

But even if the samples could not be matched, there were very few false positives. In most cases, either a match was made or it was not, but rarely did it identify the wrong person.

The study was based on a pool of 120 people, among the 242 who have donated their stool, saliva and skin samples to the Human Microbiome Project, which maintains a public database for researchers.

A computer science algorithm was used to establish individual codes based on the donors’ microbiomes. These codes were then compared to the same people’s samples collected during follow-up visits, as well as to a pool of strangers.

Researchers said their study shows it is possible to match human microbiome samples across databases.

But they also raised the issue of ethics, warning that the practice could expose sensitive personal information such as the presence of a sexually transmitted infection, which could be detected from the microbiome without the subject’s own DNA or consent.

“Although the potential for any data privacy concerns from purely microbial DNA is very low, it’s important for researchers to know that such issues are theoretically possible,” said senior author Curtis Huttenhower, associate professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at Harvard.

Like this:

The US government has finally admitted they’ve overdosed Americans on fluoride and, for first time since 1962, are lowering its recommended level of fluoride in drinking water.1,2,3

About 40 percent of American teens have dental fluorosis,4 a condition referring to changes in the appearance of tooth enamel—from chalky-looking lines and splotches to dark staining and pitting—caused by long-term ingestion of fluoride during the time teeth are forming.

In some areas, fluorosis rates are as high as 70-80 percent, with some children suffering from advanced forms.

The former recommendation called for a fluoride level of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of water. The new upper limit set by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is 0.7 mg/L, to prevent these visible signs of toxic overexposure.

Why Is a Drug Added to Water When the Dose Cannot Be Controlled?

It’s quite clear that when you add fluoride to drinking water, you cannot control the dose that people are getting, and fluoride is in fact not only a non-essential mineral but a toxic drug. This alone is one of the reasons why fluoride shouldn’t be added to drinking water at any level.

If a doctor somehow managed to force a patient to take a drug with known toxic effects and failed to inform them of the dosage and frequency, and never monitored their health outcome, they would be medically negligent and liable to legal and medical board action.

Yet water utilities administer this drug without a prescription, at the behest of the government, without any idea of who will get what dose and for how long, and without monitoring for side effects.

Fluoride is added to drinking water to, in theory, prevent a disease (tooth decay), and as such becomes a medicine by FDA definition. While proponents claim this is no different than adding vitamin D to milk, fluoride is not an essential nutrient. Moreover, fluoride isn’t even approved by the FDA for the prevention of cavities.

We now know that at a limit of 0.7-1.2 mg/L causes a great many people to overdose on the drug. Will an upper limit of 0.7 mg/L protect everyone forced to drink fluoridated water?

Considering the fact that people also get fluoride from toothpaste, dental rinses, processed foods, and beverages, the chances of overexposure are still present, even at this lowered level.

Many Will Still Be at Risk for Overexposure at Lowered Fluoride Level

At the previous level, 40 percent of US teens became “collateral damage.” What will the allowable damage be at the new level? The HHS said it will evaluate dental fluorosis rates among children in 10 years to assess whether they were correct about this new level.

Let’s say dental fluorosis goes down to 20 percent. Is 20 percent an acceptable level of harm? How about 10 percent? Who decides what the acceptable level of collateral damage is?

Remarkably, the Sacramento Bee5 reports that: “Recent unpublished federal research found there’s no regional differences in the amount of water kids drink. So it makes sense for the same levels to be used everywhere, health officials said.”

I’d be very curious to review that study, because I have a hard time imagining that kids everywhere drink the same amount of water!

It’s also a ludicrous assumption unless every single child is also exposed to the same amount of fluoride from other sources besides drinking water… and weighs the same… and has the same health status… and weknow that’s simplynot the case.

According to the HHS, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “uses the 90th percentile of drinking water intake for all age groups to calculate the relative contribution for each fluoride source.”

What this means is that if you drink more water than the 90th percentile, you are not protected by this reduced level. People most likely to fall into that category include infants receiving formula mixed with fluoridated water, people working outdoors (especially in hot climates), athletes, and diabetics.

Dental Fluorosis Is NOT the Only Risk of Water Fluoridation

Barbara Gooch, a dentist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) told NPR6 that“The only documented risk of water fluoridation is fluorosis, and it is primarily a cosmetic risk. Fluorosis in the milder form is not a health risk.”

This hints at a really deficient understanding of the available science on fluoride’s health effects. Dental fluorosis is the most visible form of fluorosis, but it’s far from being “just cosmetic” and of no further concern.

It can also be an indication that the rest of your body, such as your bones and internal organs, including your brain, has been overexposed to fluoride as well.

In other words, if fluoride is having a visually detrimental effect on the surface of your teeth, you can be virtually guaranteed that it’s also damaging other parts of your body, such as your bones. Skeletal fluorosis, which isn’t visible, is very difficult to distinguish from arthritis. Symptoms indicative of early clinical stage skeletal fluorosis include:

Bony spurs may also appear on your limb bones, especially around your knee, elbow, and on the surface of tibia and ulna

All of this has been known since the 1930s, so it’s rather disingenuous to proclaim that dental fluorosis is the onlydocumented risk of water fluoridation. If 40 percent of American teens have dental fluorosis, how many people suffer from skeletal fluorosis as a result of chronic fluoride overexposure? In one previous study, bone fracture rates also rose sharply with increasing severity of dental fluorosis. Studies have also demonstrated that fluoride toxicity, caused by overexposure, can lead to:

Fluoride Has No Benefit for Teeth When Swallowed

You are beyond naïve if you believe that fluoride somehow selectively goes to your teeth when you swallow it. Rather, it accumulates throughout your body’s bones and tissues. What little benefit fluoride may have is achieved throughtopicalapplication. Both the CDC and the World Health Organization (WHO) have noted that there is no discernible difference in tooth decay between developed countries that fluoridate their water and those that do not.7

The decline in tooth decay the US has experienced over the last 60 years, which is often attributed to fluoridated water, has likewise occurred in all developed countries, most of which do not fluoridate their water. So declining rates of dental decay is not in and of itself proof that water fluoridation actually works. It’s also worth noting that well over 99 percent of the fluoride added to drinking water never even touches a tooth; it simply runs down the drain, into the environment, where you can be guaranteed it’s doing nothing that is beneficial…

HHS Still Ignores Major Safety Concerns

According to Fluoride Action Network9 (FAN), in finalizing its new fluoride recommendation, the HHS has whitewashed a number of safety issues, failing to address recent research showing adverse effects ranging from lowered IQ in children (found in no less than 43 studies), underactive thyroid,10and ADHD.11

For example, one recent study12 linking fluoridated water to higher prevalence of ADHD created a predictive model showing that every one percent increase in the portion of the US population drinking fluoridated water in 1992 was associated with 67,000 additional cases of ADHD 11 years later, and an additional 131,000 cases 19 years later.

FAN points out that the HHS even “resorted to deceit” when it dismissed research showing reductions in IQ. The HHS stated that “A recent meta-analysis of studies conducted in rural China… identified an association between high fluoride exposure (i.e., drinking water concentrations ranging up to 11.5 mg/L) and lower IQ scores…” First of all, there are in all 43 studies reporting a relationship between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ. The study mentioned by the HHS only looked at 27 of them.

But more importantly, when you seek to protect an entire population you have to look at the lowestlevel at which harm becomes apparent, not the highest. By noting only the upper level of the fluoride concentrations found in this study, it appears the HHS was trying to offer misleading reassurance that their recommended level is well beneath any level where risk may be present. But the lowest level at which IQ reductions were noted in that study was 0.88 mg/L, which isn’t that far from the new recommended upper limit of 0.7 mg/L.

Add fluoride from other sources, and you may very well get into the range of hazard. Interestingly, a number of studies13,14,15,16 have specifically shown that children who have moderate or severe dental fluorosis score lower on tests measuring cognitive skills and IQ, suggesting that if 40 percent of our kids have fluorosis, the water fluoridation scheme in the US is likely affecting our children’s IQ as well. As noted by FAN:

“In addition, in toxicology, it is not the concentration of fluoride (mg/liter) that is the relevant parameter but the dose in mg/day (how much you drink), and such a dose has to be compiled from all sources. In the case of the Chinese children in rural villages in these studies, they did not have two sources that US children commonly have: typically they are not bottle-fed and they do not use fluoridated toothpaste.

So, it is likely that some American children are getting higher doses than some of the Chinese children who had their IQ lowered… Because fluoride is an endocrine disruptor and has the potential to lower IQ in children, FAN urges HHS to adopt the Precautionary Principle and end fluoridation now.”

They Got It Wrong—HHS Does Not Consider the Fact That Fluoride Is an Endocrine Disruptor…

According to FAN:

“HHS also stated in its press release that a report on the toxicology of fluoride by the National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC, 200617) ‘found no evidence substantial enough to support effects other than severe dental fluorosis at these levels.’

What HHS failed to state is that the NRC report of 2006 stated18 for the first time that fluoride is an ‘endocrine disruptor,’ which means it has the potential to play havoc with the biology and fate of humans and animals. This is far more significant than severe dental fluorosis.”

In 2011, FAN submitted a number of concerns to the HHS, and none of them have been adequately addressed, FAN says. These concerns include:

Mass medicating the population via the water supply is unethical

The benefit and safety of ingested fluoride has never been proved by accepted medical standards

Any benefits of fluoride are primarily topical, not systemic

Americans will still be over-exposed to fluoride at 0.7 ppm

Infants will not be protected. Babies who receive formula made with fluoridated water will still receive 175 times more fluoride than breast-fed infants

African-American children and low-income children will not be protected

Fluoride as an endocrine disruptor, which the HHS still has not taken into consideration

HHS has not considered or investigated rates of skeletal fluorosis in the US

To Protect Your Health, Avoid Fluoride

No matter which scientific studies you examine or which population trends you view, the rational conclusion is that fluoride’s health dangers far outweigh the marginal dental benefits it might offer. Dental caries can be effectively prevented with meansother than fluoridation, thereby avoiding the adverse effects of fluoride.

It’s important to realize that fluoride is a cumulative toxin, which over time can lead to serious health concerns, from hypothyroidism to skeletal fluorosis and much more. The neurological effects are particularly disconcerting. Even scientists from the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

Water fluoridation needs to stop. The question is how. Despite all the evidence, getting fluoride out of American water supplies has been exceedingly difficult. After all, the US government has promoted it for over half a century. Were it to admit that they were wrong all along, and have in fact been poisoning everyone all this time, the ramifications could be enormous. It’s not impossible to abolish water fluoridation, however, as evidenced in areas that have successfully done it.

According to the late Jeff Green, national director of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, a repeated theme in the cases where communities successfully removed fluoride from their water supply is theshifting of the burden of proof.

Rather than citizens taking on the burden of proving that fluoride is harmful and shouldn’t be added, a more successful strategy has been to hold those making claims, and the elected officials who rely on them, accountable for delivering proof that the specific fluoridation chemical being used fulfills their health and safety claims, and is in compliance with all regulations, laws, and risk assessmentsalready required for safe drinking water. To learn more, please see this previousarticle, which discusses these strategies more in-depth.

The Fluoride Action Network has a game plan to end water fluoridation not only in the US, but worldwide, but they need your support to succeed. Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs, and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So, please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

Recent Victories in the Fight Against Water Fluoridation

There have been a number of recent victories in the fight against water fluoridation that are worth celebrating, including the following:

Clarksburg, West Virginia19—Water Board members voted 2-1 in April to end fluoridation due to the growing number of studies showing negative side effects. The decision by the Clarksburg board end fluoridation for over 25,000 citizens, including residents of Bridgeport and a number of other smaller communities20.

Oneida, New York21—On May 5th the Common Council voted 5-1 to reject fluoridation for the third time since 2002. For months, the council has held public hearings and debates on fluoridation, listening to an array of experts on both sides of the issue, including FAN’s Dr. Paul Connett and NY Dept. of Health’s Dental Representative Jay Kumar, who is a long-time promoter of fluoridation. Despite an aggressive lobbying campaign by the fluoride-lobby, the council and community couldn’t be tricked into believing that the practice was safe, effective, or necessary. The decision will protect the water for over 21,000 residents.

Kingsville, Ontario22—This Canadian City Council, representing over 20,000 citizens, passed a motion in April reaffirming its stance in opposition to fluoridation. The issue was raised by the former Deputy Mayor, who urged the council to pass the motion to send a message to the provincial government, which is considering mandating the practice. The community of Lakeshore, Ontario23 also recently publicized their opposition to fluoridation, and will be sending a letter to provincial officials opposing a mandate.

Carl Junction, Missouri24—Councilors voted to end fluoridation in April after considering a number of concerns they had regarding the effectiveness and safety of the practice. The community, which is home to approximately 8,000 residents, started fluoridating the water supply in 2005 after voters approved the use of the additive. Carl Junction isn’t alone in making this decision. According to a recent article,25 “over the past five years, [at least] seven cities and towns in Missouri have removed fluoride from their municipal water systems, and a half-dozen more have put the matter to vote.”

Bennington, Vermont26–Despite aggressive campaigning by a well-organized and well-funded pro-fluoridation coalition, in March residents of this community of 16,000 voted 1,539 to 1,117 in opposition to fluoridation in an advisory referendum vote. This is at least the fifth time Bennington residents have voted down fluoridation since the 1960s.

Gilford, Pennsylvania27–Gilford Water Authority officials have decided to end fluoridation after more than 60 years of practicing it. The authority sent a letter to water customers stating, “We believe we should not put anything into the water that is not required by regulation to maintain the potability and pH balance of your water.”

Sonoma City, California28—In March, City Councilors voted 3-2 to oppose a proposal by the County government to add fluoride to the city’s drinking water. The council will be sending a letter of opposition to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors.

Help End the Practice of Fluoridation

There’s no doubt about it: fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.” Furthermore, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 41 percent of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis—unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride. Clearly, children are being overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why?

The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network has a game plan to END water fluoridation worldwide. Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs, and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So, please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

10 Facts About Fluoride: Attorney Michael Connett summarizes 10 basic facts about fluoride that should be considered in any discussion about whether to fluoridate water. Also see 10 Facts Handout (PDF).

Health Effects Database: FAN’s database sets forth the scientific basis for concerns regarding the safety and effectiveness of ingesting fluorides. They also have a Study Tracker with the most up-to-date and comprehensive source for studies on fluoride’s effects on human health.

Together, Let’s Help FAN Get the Funding They Deserve

In my opinion, there are very few NGOs that are as effective and efficient as FAN. Its small team has led the charge to end fluoridation and will continue to do so with our help!

Please make a donation today to help FAN end the absurdity of fluoridation.